Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Western Europe and Canada, Volume VI, Part 1

740.00/7–1352: Telegram

No. 63
The Ambassador in France (Dunn) to the Department of State¹

top secret
restricted distribution

Paris, July 13, 1952—6 a.m.

305. Re Embtel 304, July 12 [13].²

1. Brit Amb called on Schuman yesterday and gave him written reply to proposals which Schuman communicated to Eden on June 27 that Schuman Plan assembly shld be charged with preparation of a draft plan for establishment of a Eur polit authority. In summarizing results of conversation, Hayter showed copy of final Brit reply to Tomlinson. It is similar to that reported in London’s 77 to Dept July 5,³ except that no ref is made to Brit view that proposed action is premature. On the contrary, reply states that London recognized that creation of Eur polit auth “is matter of immed concern to the six countries” which have concluded Schuman Plan and EDC treaties, and that these govts “in view of state of opinion in their countries consider it necessary to undertake forthwith a study of this subj.”

As regards procedure, Brit consider it important that evolution of polit auth and any study of this question should take place “within framework of Council of Europe and in harmony with British (Eden’s) proposals for future of that org”. These proposals are designed “to harmonize development of Council of Eur with that of restricted communities, and in eyes of HMG provides best way of associating UK and other Eur countries with work of these communities”. Brit Govt convinced that Fr Govt shares this view and that Schuman proposals “are intended neither to exclude Council of Eur nor to prejudice Mr. Eden’s proposals”.

“In order to remove any possible misunderstanding”, Brit urge Fr and other govts concerned, if Fr proposals accepted, to declare at same time their acceptance of Eden proposals and “to give immed effect to them by deciding to set up assembly of Coal and Steel Community from outset within framework of Council of Eur”. Memo recalls that Eden’s proposals included “the possibility of inviting reps from UK and other countries to take part as observers in work of Comite of Mins and consultative assembly sitting in restricted session as institutions of the Eur Community.” (As Hayter explained to us in conversation reported below, memo does not propose that consultative assembly sitting in restricted session be the assembly of the Coal and Steel Community as reported in London tel 77 to Dept but only recalls what Eden’s proposals were.)

2. We have reconstructed Schuman’s reply to the Brit Amb on the basis of separate conversations with Monnet and Hayter. Schuman stressed again to Brit Amb that the assembly for the Schuman Plan (expanded to the size of the EDC assembly), must be given the mandate to prepare a draft treaty for the creation of a Eur Polit Community. This draft treaty wld be submitted to the govts of the six nations for approval and then to their Paris for approval. There wld be the possibility for modifications in draft treaty but Schuman hoped these cld be kept to minimum. According to Hayter, Schuman said he envisaged the draft treaty providing for the progressive establishment of a “federal parl, a fed govt and fed taxes for the six nations”. Schuman stressed that completion of this program wld take a very long time.

Schuman thought that the Schuman Plan assembly cld meet in the same bldg as the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Eur and that it might use the same secretariat. According to Hayter, Schuman agreed that all Council of Eur countries cld send observers but he hoped there wld not be too many. He commented in particular that he did not expect the Greeks and Turks to contribute very much. Schuman said observers from these countries also attend the comites of the Schuman Plan assembly but stressed that such attendance shld be very restricted. He told the Brit he had not reached firm ideas on how the US shld be associated with this work.

Surprisingly after these remarks, Schuman then said that he thought the Brit reply was in general all right and that six countries could probably issue a declaration along lines of request in last para of Brit reply. He also agreed that the Brit reply might be sent to the other five Schuman Plan countries. Hayter remarked that Schuman had only just read the Brit reply and had obviously not been briefed. Hayter did not think, therefore, that Schuman shld be held to the letter of these remarks.

3. In view of developing confusion on this subj and in line with conversation with Perkins, I asked Tomlinson to inform Hayter:

(a) That we agreed with view that Schuman Plan countries shld proceed with creation of Eur polit authority;

(b) That how and how fast the six nations did this were primarily matters for them to determine as long as their initiative contributed to and did not impede or delay our common policy for Ger and Eur; and

(c) That we wished in particular to avoid any action which might prejudice EDC ratification and Fr-Ger rapprochement either by bringing the Schuman Plan–EDC approach or membership into question or by suggesting conflict between UK and Continental countries over this question. It is particularly important that our common policy maintain its impetus while notes are being exchanged with Sov Russia on the Ger question.

Tomlinson further explained our concern to Hayter by referring to confusion reported in Embtel 288 July 11,⁴ and by pointing out that ref to Schuman Plan Council of Mins as institution of Council of Eur and implication that Schuman Plan assembly cld somehow become “consultative assembly sitting in restricted session” was in part responsible for this sitn.

Hayter replied that he cld agree entirely with our position. He said that last sentence of Brit reply was inserted merely because FonOff felt that it was necessary to repeat language of Eden’s proposals. He said it was not Brit intention to suggest that Schuman Plan–EDC assembly cld be “consultative assembly sitting in restricted session”. He recognized that decision to use Schuman Plan–EDC assembly and need for this assembly to be responsible in this matter to six nations instead of to consultative assembly required a change in Eden’s proposals.

Hayter went on to say that he expected the Fr to make this very clear in a written reply to the Brit reply very soon. He was quite confident question wld be worked out without difficulty and he did not believe any formal approach by us to London wld be very useful when only real problem was for Schuman to make his views completely clear.

4. Monnet confirmed later by telephone that Schuman had agreed to prepare a written reply to Brit memo for circulation to all interested countries as soon as he returned to Paris on July 17. Schuman has also informed Brit that Monnet will go to London end of this month to discuss organizational form of association between Schuman Plan community and UK.⁵

Dunn

1. Repeated to London and Bonn.
2. Supra.
3. Document 54.
4. Document 59.
5. According to telegram 254 from London, July 15, the British Foreign Office confirmed Hayter’s statement that the French position regarding relations between the Schuman Plan Assembly and the Council of Europe was acceptable to the British. (740.00/7–1552)